REPEAL THE CRIME BILL; WE SIMPLY CAN'T AFFORD IT

A favorite family story recounts the time my sister outdid the rest of us by giving my mother her best present of the holiday season, an enchanting gold charm bracelet. Mother wore it daily until, at month's end, an envelope arrived from our neighborhood jewelry store that contained a bill showing that the bracelet had been charged to her.

Of course, my sister was only 11 years old at the time, but she quickly learned that this was not an appropriate way to give a gift.

Apparently, neither President Clinton, who is 48, nor Congress, which is celebrating its 208th birthday, has yet to learn this lesson. Last September, amid joyous backslapping and self-congratulation, they presented the American people with the gift of a $30-billion crime bill that had attached to it dozens of dazzling provisions for more prisons, increased community policing and numerous anti-crime social programs.

What the president and Congress forgot to mention in the excitement of signing the bill was that, like my sister, they had no money to pay for the gift. As a result, the bill's provisions would have to be charged to the people at a later date-in the form of higher taxes, fewer services and reduced subsidies. One example of the president's proposal to pay for the crime bill is that a $45-million annual grant to the Chicago Transit Authority would be eliminated, resulting in higher bus fares and fewer routes. Some present!

One of the first measures the new Congress should undertake is the repeal of the crime bill. At a time when elected officials are talking about reducing the size of federal government and achieving a balanced budget, it is irresponsible to create a new bureaucracy and devise new ways of spending money that isn't there.

The crime bill is also bad policy. It represents a takeover by the federal government of local law enforcement, which historically has been the exclusive responsibility of states and local governments. Henceforth, Washington will determine where and how prisons are built, who is eligible for drug-abuse programs, how police are to be deployed in neighborhoods, how much time offenders must serve on their sentences and whether there should be night basketball for at-risk youths. Washington also intends to dictate when local police are to make arrests in domestic-violence cases.

The naked arrogance of the federal government was captured recently in comments made by Attorney General Janet Reno in defending the crime bill and opposing letting states and municipalities decide how the money should be spent: "I want 100,000 more police officers on the streets of America....Is (the money) going for police officers or is it going for...some fancy piece of equipment that's going to sit on the shelf?"

Obviously, the attorney general-and Congress-do not trust state and locally elected officials to make proper decisions for their communities. What emerges out of Washington is a disdain for the democratic institutions established by the Constitution, and for the ability of citizens to govern themselves.

The crime bill, as a matter of fiscal and political policy, is now a litmus test for the new Congress. The slogan should be: Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. But even he must stay within the family's budget.

Daniel W. Weil, a former prosecutor and chairman of the Illinois Law Enforcement Commission, is a partner in the Chicago law firm